(Please welcome Rep. Chris Murphy to My Left Nutmeg! - promoted by tparty)
Last night, the House voted (again) to withdraw our troops from Iraq by a date certain, with the redeployment mandated to begin in 30 days. I supported it, as did the entire (yes, even Shays...) CT delegation. The bill passed by a comfortable, but slim, margin, and it now heads to the Senate where the Republicans have once again promised to filibuster the bill to prevent a vote on the floor.
I came to Washington to end the war in Iraq. 10 months after being sworn in, no one is more frustrated than I that we have not been able to end our disastrous intervention in Iraq. But I remain convinced that no matter the obstinance of the House Republicans, the Senate, and the President, we should continue to press our case. The withdrawal bill we passed last night may not become law, but it moves the debate forward, and makes it clear, once again, that Democrats stand against this war, and Republicans continue to support blank check after blank check for this President.
My position, as many of you know, is clear. I will not support another dime for this war that isn't connected to the redeployment of our forces. Simple as that. But that doesn't mean that I approach a vote like last night's with enthusiasm. Even with strict withdrawal conditions, it still pains me to vote for additional funding. So yesterday morning, as our Democratic Caucus convened to debate the bill, I watched Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, and Lynn Woolsey approach the microphone. Anyone who closely follows the Congressional debate on the war knows that these three courageous women have led the anti-war movement in Washington since the war's deceitful inception. I was proud to join them earlier this year as a signer of a letter (commonly referred to as the "Woolsey Letter") to the President expressing the position of anti-war legislators who support no additional funding without withdrawal conditions attached. So in these caucuses, I listen to the opinions of Woolsey, Lee, and Waters very carefully. Wednesday morning, one by one, these three anti-war leaders made the case that the withdrawal bill before the House that day was our best opportunity to continue to keep the pressure on congressional Republicans (and some conservative Democrats) to join us in our attempts to end this war. They made a passionate case for the bill, and I concurred. Several Democrats argued from the opposite side, including Brian Baird from Washington, who made the case that Democrats should adopt a more "moderate" position than immediate withdrawal. For me, there is no moderation on this issue. We should have never gone into Iraq in the first place, and every day we stay makes the situation worse, and makes our country less safe. I listened to Baird and the others make a case against the bill - a case that fell largely on deaf ears.
So I'm proud of the bill we passed last night. And I'm equally frustrated that it likely won't become law. But I still think it's important for the Senate's impotence to be exposed, and for the President to continue to be forced to go further and further out on a limb for his failed war policy.
For me, at this point, the only alternative is to deny the President any more funding for war. That's why I voted against the war funding supplement legislation over the summer, and that's why I'll continue to advocate (in private caucuses and in public forums) that our best course now is to tell the President "no more". It's a blunt, but necessary, tool. |
MLN is powered by